Anti-money laundering law: necessary but perfectible

Recently, the Senate discussed and approved a series of reforms to the Federal Law for the Prevention and Identification of Operations with Illicit Proceeds and the Federal Penal Code, with the aim of strengthening the legal framework to combat money laundering in our country. While we share the spirit of these reforms—to protect the financial system against the influx of illicit capital—it is essential to analyze their scope and risks, especially in a context where the United States is already imposing sanctions on Mexican financial institutions, and where legality and legal certainty must be our priority.

The purpose of these reforms is to expand the powers of the competent authorities and harmonize the regulatory framework with the international standards of the Financial Action Task Force (FATF), which, incidentally, is chaired by Elisa de Anda Madrazo, a Mexican with an extraordinary track record.

I fully agree that these measures are necessary. However, based on my experience as a legislator for six consecutive years, I can assure you that good intentions do not always guarantee good legislation, because there are still risks that must be addressed.

The main one is that the senators have removed any mention of the concept of "terrorist financing," considering it unnecessary and redundant. As I have explained in other columns, "money laundering" refers to the way illicit funds enter the financial system, but "terrorist financing" refers to their exit to be used by criminal organizations.

All prevention and enforcement actions related to the outflow of resources from the financial system to promote illicit activities require specific expertise very different from that traditionally applied to traditional money laundering prevention. The Senate's decision seems contradictory, given that the United States is implementing stricter measures to combat the financing of drug-related criminal organizations, now referred to as "terrorist organizations."

Therefore, not adding this term to the law could mean that financial institutions fail to incorporate these risks into their internal compliance manuals, and are therefore even more exposed to Treasury Department orders, such as those we have recently seen.

On the other hand, they did include changes in the areas of professionalization and audits, such as the implementation of personnel selection processes and mandatory annual training programs for executives, board members, compliance officers, and employees with direct contact with clients or users. New electronic systems for registration and vulnerable activities, along with guides, regulations, and manuals, must be implemented no later than one year after their approval; this is expected to happen during the extraordinary session of the Chamber of Deputies, which ends this coming July 2.

I am pleased that Mexico has a law that better complies with international standards. But it is also a reality that we will have to implement measures beyond those provided in this regulatory framework to detect and prevent financing schemes related to fentanyl trafficking and the acquisition of chemical precursors if we want to avoid sanctions from our northern neighbor; especially given the public designation of Mexico as an "adversary country" by the United States Attorney General.

Therefore, at UNIFIMEX, we will redouble our efforts to continuously professionalize our members and continue our open dialogue with regulatory authorities and legislators to propose clearer criteria, balanced rules, and effective mechanisms. Our country needs strong, committed, and modern Mexican financial institutions. And this can only be achieved when the laws are clear, incentives are well aligned, and authorities, regulators, and the financial sector work together.